In the ancient Egypt debate why are certain people ignoring archaeology, culture, etc

Due to a security breach on 2013-12-16, all passwords have been reset and members have had their new passwords emailed. However, some members haven't received a new password, and if you're one of them, you can request a new password here. If requesting a new password doesn't work, you can try sending an email here, just make sure you use the same email you've been using on this forum, and please have a look in your spambox if you're using Gmail.

Yeah, but Upper Egypt already faded from glory as civilizations go, at that point, so that does not look good for black people. He is grasping at straws. There is already a study proving that towards the end of ancient Egypt SSA increased in the population but wouldn't that be around the time when Greece, Persia or Alexandria were more prominent ? So logic says SSA blood is bad for civilization.

BTW, I don't even know if what I am talking about is making sense here because that photobucket image is block out by advertising. Maybe , I am saying something off topic.

No i'm talking early Upper Egypt. Like 3,5000 BC to 1,000 BC or so...way before the Greek empire or Achaemenid Persian Empire.

I still don't now what to expect from Upper Egypt regarding their cranio-metric affinity. Either they will have significant SSA ancestry like current Horn Africans do (not that much but perhaps half of what they carry or more), or perhaps it's just a high Natufian component in them...and we know the Natufians craniometrically are oddballs in West Eurasia. It could be something like that.

But we have to at least concede for logic's sake IMO that it's unlikely there will be this large genetic chasm between they and the Nubians. The Nubians will be a group living right to the South of them. How much of a genetic chasm could there possibly be? How much of a genetic chasm do you expect between the Ancient Greeks and the Ancient Thracians? How much of a genetic chasm would you expect between the Ancient Romans and Ancient Etruscans?

Different ancestry and relationships of these populations can be followed on the basis of archaeological and, partially, bioarchaeological arguments. Some groups (using cemeteries E-01-2, E-03-1, E-03-2, and E-09-4) show some affiliation with sub-Saharan Africans, readable in the pottery assemblage and other grave goods, as well as some morphological features (Irish 2010; Kobusiewicz and Kabaciński 2010; Czekaj-Zastawny and Kabaciński 2015). These people were certainly mobile, perhaps spending only a few months per year at Gebel Ramlah. The E-09-02 cemeteries for neonates and adults belonged to another, more sedentary group with limited mobility; however, we cannot trace their origins based on the available record. An almost complete lack of grave goods does not allow comparative analyses. On the other hand, peculiar characters of the skeletal remains at these cemeteries—numerous neonatal/perinatal individuals and poorly preserved subadults/adults—do not allow reliable studies based on craniometric or dental data. But, qualitatively, there are no obvious differences among all populations from Gebel Ramlah at the beginning of the Final Neolithic. Thus, the two groups, culturally different, were likely not much different biologically, possibly deriving from the same region of Africa.

Here is one of the skulls featured.
There is also a pretty extensive study on their teeth and skulls that compares them to SSA, other Nile Valley, Maghreb and Eurasian remains. The are close to other Nubians, Horner and upper Egyptians. Any comments on what you expect the gentic makup of a populations like this to be and what type of Genetic continuity they would have in Egypt?

Also, something important that should be noted: recently released study confirms potential bias when it comes to choosing Ancient Egyptian remains for Europeans to display... bias against those that appear visibly African.

344
S.R. ZAKRZEWSKI & J. POWELL
Past selection for curation
During excavations in Egypt during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, some skeletal material was sent to European collections for curation. It is clear that only certain skeletons were selected, but it is unclear how this selection was made. As noted earlier, crania were particularly sought, and thus many European museum or anthropology collections of Egyptian material are comprised only of skulls.

The original crania in the Duckworth Collection tend to be more com-plete, whereas the more recently excavated sample from Hierakonpolis HK43 appears more fragmentary. This suggests that the selection of the crania for curation may have been based on morphological completeness. The lack of distinct morphological separation of the samples and the cluster analyses results demonstrate that there is no statistically significant morphological differentiation between the two Hierakonpolis samples. Therefore, the original selection of crania for transportation to Cambridge may have been undertaken on a pragmatic basis, most likely simply on the basis of relative completeness. The analyses, however, noted that the more recently excavated specimens from Hierakonpolis were more prognathic than either those in the Duckworth Collection sample or the comparative Predynastic sample. Facial prognathism has been described by non-specialists as being an ‘African’ trait (e.g., Gerasimov 1971). The crania sent to Britain tend to be less prognathic (and hence less ‘African-looking’) than those recently recovered from the site. It is possible that this was a subconscious decision, given the prevailing view at the time that the ancient Egyptians were more closely related to modern (Victo-rian) Europeans than to African populations. Further research using (and sourcing) the original collections documentation regarding the initial transportation of the crania to Britain is required to verify this hypothesis.

Also, something important that should be noted: recently released study confirms potential bias when it comes to choosing Ancient Egyptian remains for Europeans to display... bias against those that appear visibly African.